tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post4542301272241268004..comments2023-09-29T06:58:20.125-07:00Comments on Badtux the Snarky Penguin: Why is health care so expensive?BadTuxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-35454580491863950122009-08-01T07:39:01.374-07:002009-08-01T07:39:01.374-07:00Very thoughtful and informative. You've reall...Very thoughtful and informative. You've really done some homework on this which, sadly, too many others have not. No doubt even the system you describe will be gamed (this is a human-based activity, after all), but the biggest and most dangerous game--kicking people out--will no longer be an option. <br /><br />You can further mitigate the costs of a universal system by reducing the costs of the National Security State.Rez Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05733971773065696730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-87539461172685464212009-07-30T21:46:37.501-07:002009-07-30T21:46:37.501-07:00[nice rant -- that's a lovely description of t...[nice rant -- that's a lovely description of the french, be they from montreal or breaux bridge or the heart of paris.]<br /><br />i take issue with a couple of your non-french points though.<br /><br />hard to tell just looking at the big picture, exactly how much the insurance companies distort the pricing of medical care. i'm convinced we could reduce our 'health care' spending by 20% or more if we dump them.<br /><br />i use those nhe tables a lot, but something i've never found out [and tell me the answer if you know it] is whether the privatized portions of medicare and medicaid get counted as phi or govt spending in those tables. it <i>looks</i> like, just from comparing the <a href="http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf" rel="nofollow">nhe tables</a> to the <a href="http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/" rel="nofollow">medicare trustees reports</a> that the privatized portions of medicare [~20%] and medicaid [~60%] and schip [?%] are NOT counted in the phi column. if so, then there's another 3% or so wasted that we could get back.<br /><br />then there's the less tangible stuff. one of the big issues is just how much readmissions cost [people getting sent home from the hospital and going right back in a few days]. if insurers are the drivers behind people getting sent home too early [and it does happen], then they're costing us a boodle in excess <i>medical</i> spending as well as in unneeded overhead. even harder to track down would be how much they're indirectly driving other <i>medical</i> [not just administrative] spending with all their other delays and denials.<br /><br /><i>Reduce incentives for over-treatment. Doctors should not be allowed to send patients to hospitals and diagnostic testing centers that they are part-owners of,</i><br /><br />it's my understanding that japan allows doctors to own hospitals and send their patients to their own hospitals, but yes, i think that along with the astonishingly low prices the govt allows them to charge, it's possible that they're non-profits also, but i don't know that for sure.<br /><br />same for 'over-use' of imaging, japan has scads of mri machines and ct scanners, they just charge way less per scan than we do. korea too.<br /><br />ama-endorsed, eh? those same people who want to keep the dr supply low so as to [theoretically, at least] keep doctors' incomes high? color me skeptical.hipparchiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16601000402820151839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-44818697799941607292009-07-28T12:28:17.300-07:002009-07-28T12:28:17.300-07:00EGD, I am not the person understating the savings ...EGD, I am not the person understating the savings from tort reform. That is the CBO which found that the costs difference between states with strict tort limits and those without strict tort limits was 1.4%. So it does appear that defensive medicine happens, but it is a very small part of healthcare spending (especially since three of the four biggest states -- California, Texas, and Florida -- have strict tort limits, only New York does not), and frankly we have bigger fish to fry. <br /><br />Regarding "America spends more because we can afford it", that is why I use the percentage of GDP as my comparison point. France puts about 12% of their GDP into healthcare as vs. 17% for the US, i.e., they spend about 70% as much as the US as a proportion of their national income, but if you looked at their absolute spending in PPP-adjusted dollars their health care is 60% of the price of US health care because France's economy is comparatively smaller on a per-capita basis compared to the US economy. But I use the GDP figures to explicitly point out that US higher spending is not *solely* because the US is wealthier on a per capita basis -- rather, the percentage of that wealth used for health care is higher too. <br /><br />In short, my point -- that the US system is spending far more for the same outcomes as the French or Swiss system and thus has significant inefficiencies that can be wrung out of it -- remains valid. I explicitly chose the French and Swiss systems as my basis for comparison because neither has rationing nor waiting lists for service, and both have more physicians per capita than the United States as well as significant healthcare innovation and a worldwide reputation for high quality healthcare. If looking for ways to reduce U.S. healthcare spending without harming quality, comparative research of this type -- seeing what works in other nations that is not working in the United States -- is valuable and, alas, mostly not done other than spurious comparisons to Canadian and British systems which are completely unlike any proposal to reform the US healthcare system (apparently in the right wing universe the only nations outside the US are Canada and Britain, go figure!).<br /><br />- Badtux the Healthcare Economist PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-43210720568300116292009-07-28T11:43:24.629-07:002009-07-28T11:43:24.629-07:00The chart on healthcare in 1960 vs the present is ...The chart on healthcare in 1960 vs the present is very informative, thanks. It should also be pointed out that America spends more on healthcare because we can afford it.<br /><br />I guess I should read more. This is first time I have seen the following point you made: "Problem is, 16% of the nation's GDP is tied up in healthcare, but sick people don't make 16% of the nation's GDP."<br /><br />I do believe you underestimate the potential savings from tort reform. Without reform every doctor is forced to practice defensive medicine. In most cases this means a series of mostly unnecessary tests based on statistics. Juries don't understand statistical probabilities very well. Remember the O.J. trial?Escapethenewgreatdepressionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04302366010651737841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-48663184869895061562009-07-25T22:35:51.250-07:002009-07-25T22:35:51.250-07:00Nathan: The French don't value personal freedo...Nathan: The French don't value personal freedoms? Excuse me? The French are the most arrogant, opinionated, and ornery people I've ever encountered. You violate what a Frenchman views as his personal freedoms, and he doesn't just complain to a Congressman -- he and a hundred thousand of his compatriots go out and blockade government buildings and otherwise make a nuisance of themselves until it's fixed. It's one of the reasons behind France's poor war record -- they just aren't good at that whole being regimented and following orders deal. <br /><br />In short, nobody tells a Frenchman what health care he can have or not have. Nobody. Anybody who tried would get re-educated immediately. Frenchmen pay high taxes, but they pay them voluntarily in order to provide services to themselves, not because they hate freedom or some bullshit like that. Have you even BEEN to France? Or even known actual, real Frenchmen? I mean, these are the motherfuckers who CUT THE HEADS OFF of their royalty! They be some ornery bastards, yessiree!<br /><br />- Badtux the Quarter-French Penguin<br />(My Daddy's momma was from France).BadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-28983217484561113682009-07-25T16:13:12.455-07:002009-07-25T16:13:12.455-07:00Just because the courts get to interpret the Const...Just because the courts get to interpret the Constitution doesn't mean that I can't as citizen decry laws that are unconstitutional in spirit. Thus, it is NOT nonsense for me to cite the Constitution as a concern. It SHOULD be pertinent in all discussions such as this.<br /><br />When I was talking about controlling people, I was talking about your proposal, not HR3200, which I have yet to study in depth. <br /><br />France and Taiwan are not the US nor do they have the same value on individual freedom. I'm sure they are nice places. But both of those countries owe their current existence to the U.S. and the strength that came from the U.S. Constitution.nathan3700https://www.blogger.com/profile/04423294092652508970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-54480787411374288002009-07-25T10:11:02.850-07:002009-07-25T10:11:02.850-07:00Nathan, the point is that under our Constitution y...Nathan, the point is that under our Constitution you don't get to interpret it. The courts do. Occasionally they have interpretations of it that I don't agree with -- Dred Scott, for example. Occasionally they have interpretations of it that you don't agree with -- Roe v. Wade, for example. Sometimes they have interpretations of it that *neither* of us agree with, for that matter. But this is the mechanism set up by our Constitution, imperfect as it may sometimes be. <br /><br />Please note that HR3200 does *not* force you to purchase insurance. It gives you the option to instead pay a healthcare tax that goes into the uncompensated care fund so that when you *DO* go to the ER with a broken arm, your tax money that you paid, not my insurance premium money, goes to fix your arm. There is nothing unconstitutional about a tax, period. <br /><br />Personally I think we should just go single-payer with Medicare For All, but that's because it's provably the most efficient way to manage things -- every country that has tried it (e.g., Taiwan and France) has had excellent results in improving healthcare efficiencies without harming quality of care. But HR3200 does solve *one* of the perverse incentives of the current system. Currently, insurers have an incentive to kick sick people out of the system rather than become more efficient, and providers have an incentive to over-treat rather than provide medically necessary treatment. HR3200 doesn't fix the second problem, but it certainly fixes the first, and thus at least solves half the equation -- the half where the current system responds to any attempt to force efficiencies upon it by kicking people out of the system (i.e., RATIONING, which is bad, right?).<br /><br />- Badtux the Healthcare PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-42631587630044010512009-07-25T03:52:51.056-07:002009-07-25T03:52:51.056-07:00the read and comments were fascinating. and bravo...the read and comments were fascinating. and bravo to all you work<br /><br />how about we just ban warfare like japan and use all that money to make the country and infrastructure healthy instead of destroying nations, killing people and increasing the mental disease in this country (like glenn beck)<br /><br />i dont know what the solution is - i know some of your points are excellent. but i do know what we have doesnt work, and what the rich folks in congress with great insurance will do - will make it worse.Distributorcaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149154929149577121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-82411657262117620632009-07-24T20:55:49.425-07:002009-07-24T20:55:49.425-07:00Basically, what you're saying is that because ...Basically, what you're saying is that because men and women on the supreme court have chosen to reinterpret the Constitution, that it changes it? Yes, it does for the purposes of what people can get away with here and now. But it doesn't change the spirit of the Constitution. It takes a liberal reading, and frankly, a dishonest reading to throw everything into the purview of the Federal Government. <br /><br />The issues I'm talking about were recently brought up in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602360.html" rel="nofollow">Sotomayor hearings. </a> They aren't nonsense.<br /><br />What do think about the Madison quote warning about the misinterpretation of the general welfare clause. Jefferson totally agreed with Madison.<br /><br />Since 1790? Are you talking about the First Bank of the United States? Yes, Hamilton stretched the constitution in terms of means, but his ends (paying of war debt) was totally constitutional and is an enumerated power. Several of FDR's schemes *were* declared unconstitutional (and more of there weren't because the judges were packed) Yet today's health care take over is tamer then many of those schemes that were unconstitutional.<br /><br />Let me provide an example. If I had to guess I would bet that you were against Bush's warrantless wiretapping. And I bet the 4th amendment figures into your thinking, at least it does for most people who detested wiretapping. But by reading Article II liberally, you can TOTALLY make the case the wiretapping such as was done is constitutional. In fact, I at first thought it is constitutional from a liberal reading and I applauded Bush at the time for doing it. But it does violate the spirit of the Constitution doesn't it? So if we can dump the 10th amendment for you pet projects, how can you expect us to honor any other amendment?<br /><br />It has been proven that judges often just write opinions based on the outcomes they want. Imprecise human language is easy to circumvent. But sit down and read the Constitution and at least some of the more prominent Federalist Papers (For you I'd recommend first the ones authored by Madison) and tell me that the USSC hasn't departed from the Constitution? <br /><br />I don't much care for legal precedent when it it clear that it goes against the spirit of law. Do you think that the Dred Scott case was the be-all and end-all of law regarding slavery?<br /><br />So back to the power of spending federal taxes on general welfare. I agree that there is some latitude there as along as you can prove that the money benefits all Americans equally. But as soon as you can tell that is it benefiting just a special interest group it is unconstitutional. But you are going farther than the power of taxation and spending, you are *forcing* people to participate. You are controlling companies and people right and left. That is clearly not an enumerated power.nathan3700https://www.blogger.com/profile/04423294092652508970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-5987541220328211652009-07-24T08:06:19.755-07:002009-07-24T08:06:19.755-07:00Nathan, I didn't evade your question about Con...Nathan, I didn't evade your question about Constitutionality, I utterly ignored it because it was nonsense based on a restrictive reading of the Constitution that no Supreme Court all the way back to the 1790's has ever held.<br /><br />There is no Constitutional prohibition on taxes to provide services to Americans. None. There is no Constitutional prohibition on mandating that Americans purchase auto insurance or health insurance in order to protect the general welfare by providing proper risk pools to handle accidents or illnesses. None. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this multiple times and you might stamp your widdle feetsies and claim "But it's not so!" but that's not how it works in the system set up by the Constitution, the USSC, not you, decide which interpretation of the Constitution applies (yours or mine), and they ruled that mine applies.<br /><br />I already addressed most of the rest of your comment in previous posts (click on 'healthcare' at the bottom of this post), but regarding your notion that it is employer-provided insurance that is the problem: in Switzerland, individuals, not employers, purchase insurance. It didn't work. Swiss healthcare costs kept spiraling up just as fast as here in the US, though since they started at a lower base, their absolute costs were not as high. Insurers reacted by canceling the insurance of sick people to reduce the cost of insurance. Government reacted by making insurance must-issue cannot-cancel. Well individuals reacted to the escalating insurance costs by canceling their insurance, leaving only sick people in the insurance pool, which doesn't work because sick people spend 10% of the Swiss GDP but don't earn 10% of the Swiss GDP and insurers could not charge them enough premiums to stay in business. Finally Switzerland had to go to must-issue must-have -- just like HR3200, except without the "public option" -- and now have universal coverage, but it's still very expensive for the other reasons I've alluded to.<br /><br />Durnick: The cost of R&D is actually *not* the major costs of most drugs. It's been a while since I looked it up, but marketing is the biggest cost, followed by manufacturing, and R&D is down there at under 20%. And while your proposal to multi-license patents for drugs developed at public institutions is interesting, the majority of drugs are *not* developed at public institutions and thus it will not significantly drive down the cost of drugs. We have to address the other costs -- the outrageous marketing costs especially -- to get any real cost savings. I believe we can squeeze 20 to 30% out of drug prices via measures to increase efficiency, which will be decidedly helpful, but modern medicine is going to remain expensive no matter what we do.<br /><br />- Badtux the Healthcare PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-37359188319189745842009-07-24T07:40:22.163-07:002009-07-24T07:40:22.163-07:00BadTux, you evaded my concern of constitutionality...BadTux, you evaded my concern of constitutionality. I also reject the idea that all pooling of resources is a "distortion" of the free market. Home and auto insurance. Life insurance. The are all effective free market (with some regulation of course) measures that work pretty well. In fact any company that sells stock is pooling resources to have enough capital to do something that individuals can't do. <br /><br />Badtux, it *is* constitutional in the U.S. to subsidize medical research. So it is possible to continue the innovation with government help and by pooling resources. The distortion is not the pooling of resources. It is the fact that our tax code forces employers to fund and pick insurance instead of individuals. It ties us to our employer and interferes with the price signals as individuals don't question the cost of care that they aren't paying for. If all individuals bought their own insurance, they would probably all go back to buying just catastrophic insurance. This would cause a great downward pressure on the cost of everyday procedures. It would also cause hospitals to be more modest (smaller no-frills rooms such as in France). But the pool of resources for catastrophic care would continue to fund major illnesses. There are ways to ensure that the poor are given tax credits so they can be in on this system.<br /><br />It just isn't constitutional to mandate individual behavior. Badtux, you tread on very thin ice when you start making good health a right. There is no end to the government intrusion if the government has to ensure your good health. It would have to make sky diving illegal, it would have to make eating at McDonalds illegal. It would have to make it illegal to have children if the woman has risk factors. See? And as I have tried to explain before, a health right becomes a major infringement on the pursuit of happiness for a great number of people. People in their last few years of life can cost millions to keep alive. This right to good health that you speak of would require that most of us give up our pursuit of happiness to divert our energies to ensuring health parity. It could consume well over 50% of GDP to keep old folks alive for as long as possible. So eventually, yes, you have to have the right to die. And who will decide when the right to die exceeds the right to good health? Are you going to pick the magic age? You see, the government shouldn't be in this business, it is a private matter.<br /><br />The notion of the right to life in the U.S. law is that the government should take no measures to distinguish life. But by the same token, it should not take extraordinary measure to extend life, or you interfere with other primary rights such as the right to pursue your life as you see fit and the right to property. Basically, it's a non-interference of government that is paramount. BadTux, I place a high value on having children. For me, it is like denying the right to live to somebody if you don't honor the God-given responsibility to reproduce. But should I then advocate a federal law that mandates that everyone have kids? No! Alternatively, what if we make it a right to live in a pristine world. Then we have to go the other way and make it illegal to have kids, because the more people there are, the harder it is to protect the environment. You see, the questions of life and death are very personal, and you should not be dictating what others should decide. You're only job is to ensure that people are free and that the government doesn't go out of its way to extinguish life. So your lowest hanging fruit should be to prevent abortions.nathan3700https://www.blogger.com/profile/04423294092652508970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-64502849908021874862009-07-24T07:31:06.948-07:002009-07-24T07:31:06.948-07:00But drugs do not manufacture themselves.
Let'...<i>But drugs do not manufacture themselves.</i><br /><br />Let's do a little elemental math here.. Profit = Net - Cost.. So.. if there are high Profits (see pharmaceutical company statements), there are either _not_ high Costs or there is a too high a Net. One incompletely stated point is we, the people, already own the drug patents.. They (the meds) should be free (no patent restrictions) for any company to manufacture. We already know that 'generic' drugs cost less.. So, where's the 'Cost'? Ah, yes.. Capitalism.. The Rich MUST get richer.. & the poor, poorer.. You know, the 'good old boy' system is most alive & well among the educated wealthy.. It's simply called the 'rich white man' system there..<br /><br />And yes, I used to be head engineer (electrical) in a small company as well as self employed (going on 30 years now) I know of costs..durnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17831775482692938740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-26051977558192439942009-07-23T19:58:34.659-07:002009-07-23T19:58:34.659-07:00Durnik, yes, a lot of the initial theory to create...Durnik, yes, a lot of the initial theory to create new treatments comes out of universities. Even some entire new drugs have been created there. But drugs do not manufacture themselves. Once a university has created a drug in their lab, it has to be manufactured in bulk somehow. It has to be warehoused, marketed, shipped, and otherwise brought to customers. You can't handwave any of this away. I've set up supply chains and manufacturing processes before, and it is *hard*, and, alas, unrewarding work here in the USA which is why I don't do it anymore, but most new technology companies that fail do so because they can't manufacture and market the gee-whiz stuff their engineers and scientists come up with, not because they have bad product.BadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-56228458839821751232009-07-23T19:23:51.029-07:002009-07-23T19:23:51.029-07:00Most of these treatments were very expensive to de...<i>Most of these treatments were very expensive to develop</i><br /><br />Yup.. tho most of the monies came from we, the taxpayers.. Universities are very much publicly funded.. The 'beauty' (to the reapers of wealth) of the U.S. system is a company _must_ profit for a thing to be legal.. said only partially tongue-in-cheek.. Hence, private 'ownership' (remember the 'ownership society'?) of publicly funded knowledge/systems. Hell, NASA is/was trying to auction off patents held in trust by we, the people.. Their discovery was funded by our taxes. We shouldn't have to pay for the fruits of their genius.. twice.<br /><br />BTW, the reason for the need for a nation wide system is business will flock from states which try to help people over business.. This is the strength of the EU. We truly are all in this together..<br /><br />Also, instead of taxes on 'unhealthy' eating/living, why not a tax on business that produce unhealthy things. We already (supposedly) prevent gross killing of people.. Let's make it real & recognize that certain respect for nature is required to maintain, hell, get back to, a safe, clean healthy world. Allowing a business while taxing people shows the true contempt our gov. has for we, the people. Guinea pigs, all.. Strangely enough, mostly willing.. Hmm..durnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17831775482692938740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-84357264686769939122009-07-23T18:59:43.131-07:002009-07-23T18:59:43.131-07:00Nathan, I already explained why *any* health insur...Nathan, I already explained why *any* health insurance -- employer-based or not -- inherently is a distortion of the free market by having the pool pay rather than the individual. That disintermediation removes the mechanism of the free market. Switzerland has no employer-provided health insurance and has had some of the same problems with escalating costs, so it is not a problem with health insurance being employer-provided, it's a problem with pooling as a whole (whether government or private is irrelevant). <br /><br />And as I explained above, a perfect "free market" health care system would never develop advanced treatments, because without pooling, the cost of developing advanced treatments would never get amortized -- sick people use 16% of GDP but do not make 16% of GDP, so health care spending would plummet drastically, to a point where it makes no sense to try to develop advanced treatments because there's no money in the healthcare marketplace to buy them.<br /><br />There is nothing inherent in HR3200 that prohibits states from setting up their own systems. MassCare is 100% compatible with HR3200, except that the federal government takes over the cost of subsidies for people who can't afford their own insurance and the cost of enforcing the mandates. MassCare's in-state free market health insurance exchange is 100% authorized by HR3200. California has passed single-payer twice (and had it vetoed twice by the Governator), and the Kucinich amendment lets California implement their own system too if the next governor signs it. Law is fungible, not fixed in stone. If a state wants to experiment, it's fairly easy to get an amendment to the law that will allow them to experiment. But so far few have done so, because most states other than the very biggest simply lack the scale to do single-payer or etc. right.<br /><br />Finally: The only freedom the new scheme will take away is the "freedom" to die from lack of healthcare because you can't afford health insurance. Some "freedom". The only "choice" the new scheme takes away is the "choice" to be killed by health insurers who refuse to pay for the healthcare you need because it would hurt their profits. If those are your definitions of "freedom" and "choice", I would assert that you have far more difficult problems than healthcare in your life...<br /><br />- Badtux the Healthcare PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-30744127147636529942009-07-23T18:02:50.934-07:002009-07-23T18:02:50.934-07:00I thought your post was well informed as to the st...I thought your post was well informed as to the state of the situation. I'm glad to see you acknowledge the bright side of our 16% GDP spending. And I totally agree that the employer-insurer grip on healthcare is a distortion of the free market which has helped cause an artificially higher spend on health care.<br /><br />But then you proceed to argue that we need to *maintain* this artificially higher spend rate. So you are admitting that you don't care that we spend 16%, and you expect cost pressure to continue to rise, but to buy us time, you want to squeeze out some more efficiency by centrally planning our health care economy.<br /><br />So, in otherwords, you you want to trade the current distortion with your own more efficient one. <br /><br />How about we don't try to centrally plan the system? Why not get back to Constitution 101. There is no power to regulate health care in the Constitution, and amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights is supposed to guarantee that the Federal government does not micromanage our lives as you are so intent on doing. So first you need an amendment to the Constitution for you can mandate all citizens into your plan.<br /><br />Why do liberal schemes always have to be Federal? Why not use your own state as a laboratory of democracy for your ideas? Add California to Texas, and you have about the same number of people as France. If France can do it, why can't California? <br /><br />And yes, the Federal government *has* already interfered by creating the current employer-insurer distortion you mentioned. So let's just get rid of that distortion and see what the States can do. Massachussets is covering everyone. If you don't like their method, do it better in your state. <br /><br />I know that Federal solutions are appealing because interstate commerce introduces complexity. But that is the cost of freedom as it was designed for America. We are a United States, plural!<br /><br />Look, Utopia can never be achieved, even if you and Krugman and every other genius controlled all the levers. Bad stuff happens. Good stuff happens too. More good stuff happens to more people when bureaucrats who live hundreds of miles away aren't pulling their puppet strings.<br /><br />I know you mean well, and I think your plan would result in many good outcomes. But pretty soon the bureaucrats will ration, subsidize, pick, and choose your life away.<br /><br />Please consider freedom, localism, and State sovereignty in your plans.nathan3700https://www.blogger.com/profile/04423294092652508970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-63868026481104797842009-07-23T15:46:29.060-07:002009-07-23T15:46:29.060-07:00Wingnuts are all in arms about illegal aliens gett...Wingnuts are all in arms about illegal aliens getting health care. There are 46 million Americans w/out health care, and an estimated 3 million illegal aliens. But they are determined to deny care to the 47 million on account of the 3 million. Math impaired?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755751787529512695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-86557872142513471932009-07-22T18:13:45.036-07:002009-07-22T18:13:45.036-07:00Whew! Thought I got the wrong page by accident .
...Whew! Thought I got the wrong page by accident . <br /> Thanks ,<br /> w3skiw3skihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13993709956954374919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-68654623093503054592009-07-22T18:02:13.550-07:002009-07-22T18:02:13.550-07:00WTF? Dude, you need to lay off the Glenn Beck and ...WTF? Dude, you need to lay off the Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, the nuttiness is wearin' off on you. WTF does immigration have to do with health care? Nothing. <br /><br />I'm leaving your post here just to point and laugh at it -- "hey look, a paranoid bigot posted on my blog!" -- but any further off-topic posting of immigration garbage on a health care topic *WILL* be deleted. Not that I expect you to be back, since you're a single-issue troll who has dumped his load (PLOP!) and gone.<br /><br />- Badtux the Pointing-and-laughing PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-9460305113020381962009-07-22T17:56:24.651-07:002009-07-22T17:56:24.651-07:00It tends to make a lot of good people despondent a...It tends to make a lot of good people despondent and at the least susceptible, when they read, watch and listen to the maverick storm of media ads, thumping down President Obama's health care initiative? Much of the rambling artifacts are the Simon and Lois ads of the Clinton administration, heavily armed against any revisions in this issue that wealthy insurance companies and subsidiaries won’t tolerate.<br /><br /> They insulted the senior citizens with their propaganda and bald faced lies about the European government run health care system. Being originally an Englishman myself, I guarantee in the 1960's, we had a unique form of medical services, inclusive of eye and teeth. Even government run medical care in Australia was exceptional. It did plummet down somewhat, when business starting recruiting foreign labor from the commonwealth and Northern Europe. Many were out for a free financial ride and got it, along with their large families that British citizens have to support with their limited pounds sterling.<br /><br />Just as the anti-governmental health care extremists have been pounding the airwaves, the open border, globalist is now subjecting the American people to a torrent of inflaming immigration polls. But like all polls they can be intentional manipulated, in exactly how the questions are worded? Sure they can keep their co-pays, deductibles and pre-existing small-print clauses, squeezing every penny from a hurting economy, but tell the--BLOODY TRUTH!<br /><br />It's a sad fact that you cannot trust the Liberal slant regarding this searing problem, although not all Liberals are favorable to another AMNESTY? The Democratic leadership, hiding liberal views behind closed drapes tried to annihilate any good, workable illegal immigration enforcement laws. In an earlier session of the Senate an error was made with E-Verify, so it's was fortunate to survive Sen. Reid and Pelosi’s notion? Anything that has an impact on removing illegal immigrants is intercepted by business oriented free traders.<br /><br />GOOGLE---illegal immigration--to find out their sinister intention, to just throw open the gates, ports and airline entrances to cheap labor, that also become the downfall of the European Union. the polling I have seen has been calculatedly --ENGINEERED--to get results, that they can brandish around, declaring the majority of Americans believe in a path to citizenship and open borders? Already the Democrats are ready to flag the Save Act, 287(g) local police enforcement to weaken these laws.<br /><br /> Currently both issues have heavy fallout, and you the voter should let your Senator or Representative know your opinion on either matter at 202-224-3121---BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. Both have massive consequences in costs and quality of life in your future and generations to come.WE MUST SAY NO AMNESTY! SEAL OUR BORDERS AND NO MORE FREEBIES TO ILLEGAL ALIENS. THEY ARE THE CRIMINALS, NOT AMERICANS WHO SACRIFICE TAXES? GOOGLE--NUMBERSUSA for details our government and the media have a nefarious talent, for keeping facts under wraps?Brittanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15971352404374602334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-86488741810906515462009-07-22T16:41:49.717-07:002009-07-22T16:41:49.717-07:00Dear Brainy Bird -
Nice post. I know a lot of wor...Dear Brainy Bird -<br /><br />Nice post. I know a lot of work goes into a post as factual as that. Thanks.<br /><br />DougAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755751787529512695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-50451195082657645352009-07-22T15:10:04.474-07:002009-07-22T15:10:04.474-07:00Please to excuse my simplistic views and probable ...Please to excuse my simplistic views and probable missunderstandings of the system , But ; Medicare , as I understand , we all (who still hold jobs) pay for it it taxes . The users pay for it as a yearly charge in addition to a deductable set by their income . Medicare in return sets prices that it will pay for services , and should have set prices for pharmacuticals as well .<br />It seems so much like we have a working solution to health care now . Add a bit more in employer contribution and a slightly higher tax rate to pay for it . Perhaps a specific tax on unhealthy living : smokes , drugs , booze ,etc. Enroll everyone , and then charge people of wealth a higher percentage than a SSI victim , with a much higher percentage out of pocket for "non essential" services . <br /> Yea I know , I used that phrase "tax increase" , but it seems like a small increase with a lot of new users might work ? <br />Am I (more than) "one toke over the line" ? Or might this work ?<br /> a curious w3skiw3skihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13993709956954374919noreply@blogger.com